LordReed:
Are you now trying to deny that your god endorsed slavery?

How did you get that from my previous question to you?,

Premiumwriter:
Stop giving yourself false credit.

I didn't read it because what you wrote is utter trash. I only try to be respectful in my previous post not because you spoke any truth.

Now your anger is rising and close to insult.

I would keep saying it, "THERE IS NO ACT THAT IS NOT BACKED UP BY REASON!" whether you aware of it or not.

Exactly as you are not making this thread WITHOUT of a reason.

We see the reason!

Premiumwriter:

Do you think other religions offering human/animal sacrifice do so without reasons?

I have already said it a above that these people will have their own reasons which you even pointed out saying "that they may be carrying a sacrifice to the gods because they are happy that the gods they served has blessed them or they just want to do it as an appeal to the gods for wealth."

So, this is not in issue.

Premiumwriter:

You keep saying reason, so what reason justifies the sacrifice of Jesus? Is that reason reasonable enough?

I answered you already above and you got it, which is why I said you are not After The Truth.

And I said The Law of Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,...life for life.

God Himself was The One Who Made Away that we do not lose our own Life Because of The Law of Life for Life.

Therefore God DIRECTED AND PRESCRIBED what Life He would Accept in Exchange of our Loss of Life because of guaranteed judgement of Guilty when The Law Charges us, that we may not lose our own life or Lives.

Then Christ Himself was The One Who Put Down His Own Life for and on behalf of our own lives which we shall lose if nothing was done.

So how is it Unreasonable for A Person to lay down His Life for and on behalf of Loved ones in death row?

Is this a bad thing?

Where we not here when people were praising and saying how good it was for those people who sheilded their loved ones from attack when a murderer entered the cinema and shot randomly at them in America some years back?

So how can this sacrifice be unreasonable?

Kobojunkie:
How did you get that from my previous question to you?,

You are claiming

Kobojunkie:
Why would a brand New Law for a Kingdom need to "outlaw" that which was never a part of it to begin with?

when it clearly doesn't outlaw the previous practice. Jesus never for once tells anybody "free your slaves you don't need them or for the sake of the kingdom".

LordReed:
You are claiming when it clearly doesn't outlaw the previous practice. Jesus never for once tells anybody "free your slaves you don't need them or for the sake of the kingdom".

Why would a brand new Law for a different (New)Kingdom need to "outlaw" that which never existed in it to begin with?

Kobojunkie:
Why would a brand new Law for a different (New)Kingdom need to "outlaw" that which never existed in it to begin with?

The same way it outlawed all the other things before it. Does Jesus condemn slavery, no. In fact Jesus acknowledges slavery was going on and accepted it as the norm. Whatever obfuscation you are attempting doesn't work, your god is pro slavery while you aren't, ergo you are better than your god.

LordReed:

The same way it outlawed all the other things before it. Does Jesus condemn slavery, no. In fact Jesus acknowledges slavery was going on and accepted it as the norm. Whatever obfuscation you are attempting doesn't work, your god is pro slavery while you aren't, ergo you are better than your god.

Outlawed what?

Jesus Christ said in His Kingdom He alone is Master, Head, Authority - everyone is equal as we are all servants of His - , so of what use is there for a law to outlaw that which was never a part of the Kingdom to begin with?.

Dtruthspeaker:


Now your anger is rising and close to insult.

I would keep saying it, "THERE IS NO ACT THAT IS NOT BACKED UP BY REASON!" whether you aware of it or not.

Exactly as you are not making this thread WITHOUT of a reason.

We see the reason!



I have already said it a above that these people will have their own reasons which you even pointed out saying "that they may be carrying a sacrifice to the gods because they are happy that the gods they served has blessed them or they just want to do it as an appeal to the gods for wealth."

So, this is not in issue.



I answered you already above and you got it, which is why I said you are not After The Truth.

And I said The Law of Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,...life for life.

God Himself was The One Who Made Away that we do not lose our own Life Because of The Law of Life for Life.

Therefore God DIRECTED AND PRESCRIBED what Life He would Accept in Exchange of our Loss of Life because of guaranteed judgement of Guilty when The Law Charges us, that we may not lose our own life or Lives.

Then Christ Himself was The One Who Put Down His Own Life for and on behalf of our own lives which we shall lose if nothing was done.

So how is it Unreasonable for A Person to lay down His Life for and on behalf of Loved ones in death row?

Is this a bad thing?

Where we not here when people were praising and saying how good it was for those people who sheilded their loved ones from attack when a murderer entered the cinema and shot randomly at them in America some years back?

So how can this sacrifice be unreasonable?

So the reason for the sacrifice of christ was because of the law which state that a life was for a life?... well, why do christians then frown at others whose gods ask for a life for their own lives or you think those other religions do not have reasons for carrying out human sacrifices?

Like i said the reason is secondary. the problem here is that human sacrifice was involved in other for christians to live the lives they are living today..regardless of the reason.

so why castigate others who do the same?

and no, i was not angry. if anything, i was irritated by your effort in trying to give cheap credit to yourself without actually countering any of the point i made earlier on in my post. just as you are still ignoring my argument: was a life taken for christians to enjoy the benefits of their god?

Premiumwriter:
... well, why do christians then frown at others whose gods ask for a life for their own lives or you think those other religions do not have reasons for carrying out human sacrifices?

In their case, it is proven that they Take Lives that does not Lawfully belong to them.

If and when they sacrifice their own lives or the lives of their own children or animals, We would not have a right to complain for they are within The Law. It is between them, their children, their animals and their god and The Creator of themselves, the animals and children to settle it.

BUT IT IS PROVEN THAT THEY TRESPASS TO ANOTHER NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE, CHILD AND ANIMAL, THERE BY BREAKING THE LAW!

Premiumwriter:

was a life taken for christians to enjoy the benefits of their god?

This is a New Question and you never asked it before so it is wrong for you to make it look like you once asked this question and I did not answer it WHEREAS YOU NEVER ASKED IT.

Now! To the Question, Yes, A life was given so that we can have Both A Contract (Covenant) With God and Fulfil the equirements of The Law so that we can Keep our own Lives.

That's why you see Abraham the Father of Christianity do it, Same as The Law Glver, Moses and Same The Law itself!

Even Noah did it.

THE LAW MUST BE COMPLIED WITH, "LIFE FOR LIFE, AN EYE FOR AN EYE.'

Please read your bible more for understanding.

If you say christ death was not to do away with the old testament, then having a new testament is meaningless and christians should still be offering the blood of animals for the forgiveness of their sins.

But this is not so because Hebrews 10:4 " For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." and therefore the blood of christ was offered "For this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:28

and for context, shedding of blood is not cutting open a part of the body and removing blood. shedding of blood is the eupemism for death.

"“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’ Lev 17:14

"Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh." Deut 12:23

Kobojunkie:
I don't adopt the doctrines and traditions of men , doctrines which you have obviously imbibed yourself. So, I am not every Christian.

Jesus Christ's death was not to do away with the Old Covenant. That Covenant still lives to this day - it is eternal Covenant. So blood of goats and animals, they are still valid to this day.

You mention that the Old Covenant was sealed in the blood of animals, so also was the New Covenant when Jesus Christ's blood was shed on the cross. He didn't need to die if all that wws required was His blood for the sealing of the New Covenant. When Jesus Christ announced on the cross , " it is finished", the New Covenant was sealed at that moment, while He still drew breath.

But Jesus Christ had to die for His mission to serve as Ransome for the sinners of the Old Covenant to be concluded and for for New Covenant, which brought Life to begin for all. He had to give up His life, and be raised from the Dead, we all, previously dead, would be able to obtain Eternal life from Him, Jesus Christ.

Understand that His Death and resurrection was essential to our awakening to the New Covenant. If Jesus Christ had instead died in old age, the entire world have had to remain as was until then for a chance at the New Covenant- His resurrection also.

But what is life and Death to the one who is the embodiment of Eternal life itself? It is not even the blinking of the eye to such. So He chose to give up His life to end His original mission which was to the Lost sheep of Israel, and then rose from the dead so He could throw open the gates of the Kingdom of God and the New Covenant Law that governs it , to the whole world, that those who chose Him will have eternal life granted them by Him.

Premiumwriter:
Please read your bible more for understanding.

If you say christ death was not to do away with the old testament, then having a new testament is meaningless and christians should still be offering the blood of animals for the forgiveness of their sins.

But this is not so because Hebrews 10:4 " For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." and therefore the blood of christ was offered "For this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:28

and for context, shedding of blood is not cutting open a part of the body and removing blood. shedding of blood is the eupemism for death.

"“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’ Lev 17:14

"Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh." Deut 12:23

I suggest you reread my previous comment again so you don't needlessly repeat this point I already touched on.

Kobojunkie:
Outlawed what?

Jesus Christ said in His Kingdom He alone is Master, Head, Authority - everyone is equal as we are all servants of His - , so of what use is there for a law to outlaw that which was never a part of the Kingdom to begin with?.

He outlawed divorce. So divorce was more a priority for him than the slavery going on that he approved of previously. Look at you trying to excuse the god for ignoring the slavery he approved. This is what I mean, your god's standards are so poor you have to do mental gymnastics to make it look palatable. When will you people stop doing this to yourselves.

LordReed:


He outlawed divorce. So divorce was more a priority for him than the slavery going on that he approved of previously. Look at you trying to excuse the god for ignoring the slavery he approved. This is what I mean, your god's standards are so poor you have to do mental gymnastics to make it look palatable. When will you people stop doing this to yourselves.

As soon as he changes the rusty screws...

sonmvayina:


As soon as he changes the rusty screws...

LoL. I hope so.

LordReed:
He outlawed divorce. So divorce was more a priority for him than the slavery going on that he approved of previously. Look at you trying to excuse the god for ignoring the slavery he approved. This is what I mean, your god's standards are so poor you have to do mental gymnastics to make it look palatable. When will you people stop doing this to yourselves.

Jesus Christ didn't outlaw divorce, no! Again, Jesus Christ did not abolish or make changes to the Old Covenant Law of Moses which remains Law to those of the Kingdom of Canaan, so there is no way He could have outlawed divorce.

Instead, He prescribed divorce in His New Covenant, only in case of fornication in the Kingdom of God

Kobojunkie:
Jesus Christ didn't outlaw divorce, no! Again, Jesus Christ did not abolish or make changes to the Old Covenant Law of Moses which remains Law to those of the Kingdom of Canaan, so there is no way He could have outlawed divorce.

Instead, He prescribed divorce in His New Covenant, only in case of fornication in the Kingdom of God

Yes and he couldn't say anything about slavery instead he even uses it as parable several times? Nothing you say will absolve your god from this. How does it being in the OT make it any different. Your god endorsed slavery you with your better moral sense do not.

LordReed:
Yes and he couldn't say anything about slavery instead he even uses it as parable several times? Nothing you say will absolve your god from this. How does it being in the OT make it any different. Your god endorsed slavery you with your better moral sense do not.

Again, go back through this discourse and you will find that I have in no way tried to absolve God of anything. He gave the Old Covenant Law of Moses to the Nation of Israel, did He not?

Kobojunkie:
Again, go back through this discourse and you will find that I have in no way tried to absolve God of anything. He gave the Old Covenant Law of Moses to the Nation of Israel, did He not?

So good you admit your god is pro slavery while you are not.

LordReed:
So good you admit your god is pro slavery while you are not.

Again,

Kobojunkie:
If you are referring to the Law of Moses which was given to the Nation of Israel, that Law was a Law that indeed included moral laws. I am not of Israel.
I am called according to the New Covenant which is what I refer to as a standard higher than human morals.

God is a God of Laws and since I am bound to a separate agreement that those of the Old, I can only live by this agreement, while accepting the existence of the other agreements.

Kobojunkie:
Again, God is a God of Laws and since I am bound to a separate agreement that those of the Old, I can only live by this agreement, while accepting the existence of the other agreements.

Unless your god is not the same as the one in the OT you are only doing an end run around your own shadow. Who cares who the agreement was with, your god is proslavery you are not.

LordReed:
Unless your god is not the same as the one in the OT you are only doing an end run around your own shadow. Who cares who the agreement was with, your god is proslavery you are not.

Again, same God different Laws. I live under the New Covenant so I live by a different Law.

Kobojunkie:
Again, same God different Laws. I live under the New Covenant so I live by a different Law.

Same morally poor god and you that has surpassed your god's morality.

LordReed:
Same morally poor god and you that has surpassed your god's morality.

I didn't and can't surpass my God. Afterall the standard I live by is also His..

Kobojunkie:
I didn't and can't surpass my God. Afterall the standard I live by is also His..

Nope he is pro slavery and you are not that alone puts you above your god.

LordReed:
Nope he is pro slavery and you are not that alone puts you above your god.

... I am a slave! Recall I told you that in the Kingdom of God, Jesus Christ is the one and only Master?

Kobojunkie:
... I am a slave! Recall I told you that in the Kingdom of God, Jesus Christ is the one and only Master?

Are you pro slavery?

LordReed:
Are you pro slavery?

Slavery systems exists in the very world we live in today. It may not be as apparent given we have modernized it it many ways, but it has always been a part of out world.

I am not against slavery - against inhumane practices though - this since even I submit to being a slave to my own master, Jesus Christ, rather than continue as a slave to any human master.

Kobojunkie:
Slavery systems exists in the very world we live in today. It may not be as apparent given we have modernized it it many ways, but it has always been a part of out world.

I am not against slavery - against inhumane practices though - this since even I submit to be a slave to my own master rather than continue as a slave to any human master.

Ahh sorry I must have mischaracterised you, you are just as morally depraved as your god. Won't make the mistake again.

LordReed:
Ahh sorry I must have mischaracterised you, you are just as morally depraved as your god. Won't make the mistake again.

Cool!

Kobojunkie:


I am not against slavery - against inhumane practices though

Jesus f#cking Christ, I love these people!!!!

KnownUnknown:


Jesus f#cking Christ, I love these people!!!!

They always surprise you the extent they can go for this their god don't they. LoL

LordReed:
They always surprise you the extent they can go for this their god don't they. LoL

They always surprise you?

For one who has been active on here for so long, you mea it never occurred to you that when we say we are servants of the Master or of God, it implies we are slaves of His, and those who willing submit to being slaves of even God cannot, by reason of common sense, be against slavery?